Talk:New Girl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Johnmayonnaise1234.

(The?) New Girl[edit]

Every promotional material is referreing to this TV show as "New Girl". Why has this article been called "The New Girl"? Slasher-fun (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was announced as The New Girl (see the references), but it's currently on Fox's website as New Girl (working title). I'll move it for now, title may still change though, but we can move it again if that's the case. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it?[edit]

Is it Jake Johnson or Jake M. Johnson? Cleo20 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation[edit]

can someone explain why coach returns from somewhere if he was already there in the pilot episode? it's really confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.163.214.58 (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's less confusing if you notice that it is two different black guys. Both in term of character and actors. :rolleyes: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.171.79 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single-camera?[edit]

This show is not single-camera. not sure how to change the infobox.Moss Ryder (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fixed. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not? Everything I've read said it is. And it looks just like the other single-cams on TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rurry007 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Critics" section[edit]

The critics section has a lot of grammar issues and also doesn't really cite its sources... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rurry007 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you. The recent mass additions to the article (including the "Critics" section you mention, the Plot, and parts of Production) are very poorly written. Grammar and punctuation issues, lack of sources, lots of vague statements, etc. I have removed some unsourced material, but there is more to be done. Apparently, this page appears to be some sort of "group assignment". --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a fairly extensive edit to this article, hopefully now it makes more sense. Some of the details under production were not even accurately representing what the referenced articles were saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.180.232 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt deserves his own page[edit]

I think of all the characters on the show, Schmidt has become the most evolved. He has gone beyond the series, even having his own dating service video on YouTube, and his book "The Douche Journals" was published before the season premiere. - Jasonbres (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Character name[edit]

Cece's full name was revealed to be Cecelia Park in "Table 34" (season 2: episode 16), but from the beginning of the series, it has been Cece Meyers. Should it be changed? -- CollisionCourse (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racism?[edit]

Even if the series happens in one of the largest latino (hispanic) cities in the world (the largest one outside Latin America or Spain), there are no latino characters. Racism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.195.117.70 (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit racism, sure. It's hardly unique to New Girl, though. I don't have a source offhand, but I've read about how Law & Order portrays a much whiter New York than the real one. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcast section[edit]

I am going to remove the international broadcast section, last included here. It seems the show airs almost everywhere now, so the list in itself is nothing special (lacking noteworthiness). The list overwhelms the article (editoriability). How I Met Your Mother doesn't have such a list either, probably for the same reasons (see talk page). I personally don't mind mentioning some English-speaking countries, but IMO the (full) list has to go. – sgeureka t•c 11:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major article expansion ahead[edit]

Season 3 is about to start, so I expect this article to get more interest from readers soon, possibly from editors as well. I have started collecting masses of information in my userspace in order to expand this article significantly. However, I am about to go on vacation without internet access and will work offline on the article instead. Just for everyone's information so that we can avoid duplicate or lost work. – sgeureka t•c 14:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's info, here's the link I found. User:Sgeureka/New Girl––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 20:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Wayans/Coach in the Main cast list[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's not entirely clear how the article should treat Damon Wayans Jr.'s appearances in New Girl. Technically speaking (which is usually pivotal for me), he is not in the main cast and hence shouldn't be listed in the Main cast section. However, it's entirely likely he'll appear in even more episodes this season than main cast actress Hannah Simone (Cece), and there is more media coverage about Wayans than I could ever find for Simone. As long as it's made clear that Wayans is technically not part of the main cast (in parentheses), I propose to include him in the main cast section. This is more educational for the reader than just listing him with the usual ten-word blurb in the Recurring cast section. – sgeureka t•c 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support inclusion in main as nominator. – sgeureka t•c 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comments disagreeing after two months, so I guess this is a non-issue. Closing. – sgeureka t•c 14:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split[edit]

creation Even with the spun-off character list, the article is currently 115 kB, of which 46 kB are "readable prose size". Per WP:TOOBIG, the article is near "> 50 kB: May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". The likeliest spin-off subjects are Nick and Jess (their section already overwhelms the article, but as the most discussed topic by media outlets, this is not surprising) and the Awards table. I am in no hurry to split both them off right now, but with the show very likely to be renewed for a fourth season soon, I want to ask others for input what should be done (agreement, opposion, or other ideas). – sgeureka t•c 11:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be split. A new page for "Nick and Jess" or just for the entire "relationships" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.172.27 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theme song[edit]

I think the seven(?) bar theme song (which is often truncated further) is unusual enough to merit a little discussion in the article. I'm guessing it was supposed to be one of Jess's dorky improvised songs, with a background that she's fantasized involving her roommates--but while the producers might know, I'm just speculating. I can't remember whether Wayans appears in the theme to the pilot, but that might be worth noting too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.114.96 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

Is this significant amount to be included into the New Girl article? In which these sources say that the creators of New Girl had blatantly ripped off from the show Square One, as they proclaimed. The creators of Square One, Stephanie Counts and Shari Gold, claimed that there are "so numerous and specific that the independent creation was obviously impossible."

Sources:

panicpack121 16:49, 26 February 2014

There needs to be a subheading based on the entire plagiarism case. It should specifically be mentioned that the plaintiffs were offered money to settle out of court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.32.73 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, the article gives this topic two sentences, but I feel a subheading might give this lawsuit WP:UNDUE weight. This was big news for a week in January, and we haven't heard anything since then. It's entirely possible the thing will be settled out of court and we'll never hear about it again. As overwhelming the evidence might appear at first, the only real headscratcher (IIRC) is that Spencer thing; the rest looks like a fringe theorist illustrating patterns. Also, the law firm appears to be really minor, so I doubt any real weight behind it. – sgeureka t•c 09:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's settled out of court, it'll be mentioned in due course. I'm pretty sure of that. I support a subheading.

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that this is the primary topic of the term "New Girl". Cúchullain t/c 23:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


New Girl (TV series) → New Girl – The TV show is clearly the primary topic here. The TV series has received 235,186 views in the past 30 days, compared to 897 for The_New_Girl_(Haven) and 838 for The_New_Girl_(novel) (the other topics listed at the New Girl disambiguation page that have an associated article page). This is not to mention that the other articles contain "The" in their names, whereas the article for the TV series does not. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose too generic despite the relatively small number of songs and other subjects in this case. It is a TV series. And New Girl Now needs adding to dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the song commonly referred to only as "New Girl"? If not, it's a partial title match and should go in the See also section. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively it can go after the three songs called "New Girl". In ictu oculi (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Huh, I didn't really expect to, but this does seem to be a primary topic, based on our coverage. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The show is more of a primary topic for the title than any of the other articles on the dab page. Per BDD, most of the other articles are partial title matches anyway. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 10:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plans for the article[edit]

Now that the New Girl TV season is over, here's what I plan to do with the article in the upcoming weeks:

  • I have enough secondary information to start sections about costume&make-up and the opening titles.
  • The loft dynamics section is terribly outdated with the Coach developments and room-shuffling.
  • The media interest in Nick&Jess seems as strong as ever, regardless of if they're a couple or not, so it's seems sensible and necessary to spin out their section like planned.
  • The reception section is too long. There is too much info about the pilot. Some stuff on Nick&Jess can be moved to their subarticle in the future. Maybe Schmidt or Schmidt&Cece need their own subarticle as well? (I am not sure.) Anyway, I hope to find and use more reviews that focus on whole seasons instead of single episodes.
  • I don't know how smart it was too combine "Broadcast and ratings". I may split it again, maybe.

If anyone else has suggestions or concerns, let me know. – sgeureka t•c 13:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Runtime parameter as per RfC close and subsequent admin reiteration[edit]

Per the admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Admin: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases". It was reiterated on this page under "Thank you, and a question": "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."

Based on this, the directions for the infobox's runtime parameter need to include this decision, which follows Wikipedia WP:OR policy. This would be, to quote, the admin: "third-party source required." I would ask that the editors who argued against this in the RfC to please abide by the RfC close, the admin reiterations, and Wikipedia OR policy. --Tenebrae (talk)

I'm afraid your links don't work and misrepresent the RfC close, which was This discussion is moot. Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases. An RfC among editors with a specific area of interest, and by definition biased in favour of a liking for the minutiae of TV shows, cannot be an appropriate venue for overriding foundational policy. However, you are well aware of this, having had this discussion previously. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the admin's page worked just fine. I've now added the exact section of the page, which you easily could have found. Contrary to your assertion, I am not misrepresenting anything since I'm quoting the closing admin verbatim. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what the hell happened to Common Sense here ?, Not everything needs a source especially the runtime ... In the 3 years I've been here I've never ever known them to be sourced and they don't need to be either ..... You're never going to find any source that specfically tells you the runtime except TV Listings which obviously cannot be used ... so therefore the runtime is unsourceable ? .... –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 15:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed bar the opening theme every single part of that infobox is unsourced so therefore by your logic we would need to remove every single part of the infobox that's not sourced ....... Would you require a source just for the titlecard caption too ? .... –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, we're only talking about runtime, which we absolutely cite for movies and music recordings, so why you want to carve out a special OR exemption for TV is beyond me.
Second, the RfC outcome specifically says, in the words of the closing admin that reliable third-party sourcing is needed. Your argument here is essentially: "I don't agree with the RfC outcome so I'm going to do whatever I want."
If you're so sure of what the runtime is, then why don't you want to cite it? Because you're just making a number up. If you weren't, you'd cite it to the source you got it from.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've quoted the TfD outcome above and it does not support you. The RfC was closed because of the wording of the RfC question, which asked whether we should allow editors to measure runtimes themselves. The outcome of the RfC was certainly not that citations are required in all cases. As for why don't you want to cite it, that's a bit hard when you're deleting the content and even sometimes the entire parameter. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where you're quoting the RfC outcome, because I quote it in my very first post in this section. It forbids your OR. In case that wasn't clear enough, the closing admin subsequently said: A reliable third party source is required. How do you get that citations are not required? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't quoted the clarification that the closer provided at WT:TV. I have, with links to the actual posts, including the close, at WP:AN3. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've edited over a good 200 movie articles and as far as I can remember not one ever had a source
Absolutely - The RFC shouldn't have been closed as such and I do whole heartedly disagree with it (I'm all for following consensus and policy and all that but Common Sense should be used which clearly it isn't with the RFC and the edit warring)
True but with most online programmes/players you'll have the runtime at the bottom so takeaway the credits (or if you like include them) and there's your answer, I tend to buy my stuff from supermarkets which as far as I know don't include runtime on their site but even if they did it' creating alot of work for nothing ....., As I said on my talkpage I'm not going to edit war as I've said my peace but the RFC clearly needs a take #2 minus you and AL arguing .... –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's common sense to you is the opposite of common sense to me: Are you saying you're the sole arbiter of what is common sense? In fact, you're not making sense: You're saying no one should have to give a source for runtime claims and that it's OK to make up approximate guesses. That's not common sense.
If you're editing movie articles and inserting running times without a citation, then you're editing badly and against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I and many other responsible editors of movie articles find cites for running times — the British Board of Film Classification, primarily — and it's not hard for people who respect consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In fact, you're not making sense" - Do I ever ? , Nope I've never added runtimes not ever but what I'm saying is I've never seen them sourced so too me it all seems rather silly at the moment, As I said above- would the entire infobox need sourcing as technically until sourced it's all original research"... –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Content that's cited in the article body doesn't have to be re-cited in the infobox. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwig Göransson, the Camera setup and even the Picture format are as far as I can see aren't mentioned at all in the article but they're still in the infobox ... so perhaps we should remove them too ?, Better still why not get rid of the entire infobox that'd solve all our wprries. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm to try to excuse a refusal to follow RfC consensus isn't constructive. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see that User:AussieLegend has properly cited the runtime, which is all I and WP:NOR were ever asking for in the first place. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would choose to create wikidrama rather than just citing something properly. It's all good now. It's all done. This is all that was ever needed, for goodness' sake. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well genius you could've avoided all of this shit by sourcing the damn thing yourself instead of being fucking lazy and just disruptively removing everything!, The only person who's created unnecessary wikidrama is you. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. Wikipedia is very clear that the burden of citation falls on the editor who makes a claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RfCs are informal and not binding. You created the drama by removing the content instead of simply challenging it with {{citation needed}}. You've done it before,[1] although much "coaxing" was needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I'm correct - You should've cited it instead of being lazy period, Even if you added a CN tag that would've been better than just removing it and creating all of this crap. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you very demonstrably are wrong. Please read WP:BURDEN, which says (boldface from the page itself): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." We done? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We done!. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Runtimes part 2[edit]

There still seems to be some edit-warring over runtimes despite the addition of a citation. {{Infobox television}} only requires an approximation for the runtime, so 22 minutes is used because most episodes are that length. However an anonymous editor has been adding "21-24 minutes", which is both technically correct and supported by the citation. If you look at the url in the citation you will see that season 4 episode 6 is 24 minutes long. On that page, at the left and just above the episode list, is a button labelled "Season 4". Clicking that reveals a drop-down box that allows you to select different seasons. If you select season 1, you'll see that episodes 1,2,3,6,13 and 19 are all 21 minutes long, so "21-24 minutes", which is what the IP originally added, is the actual runtime range. While the existing citation seems more than sufficient, it appears that either people do not realise that all of the seasons can be checked from the one page, so I've amended the existing citation and added another so that both relevant seasons can be checked. If necessary I can add cites for seasons 2, 3 & 5 as well. I've changed "22 minutes" to "21-24 minutes", as that is the actual range. Hopefully, that should stop the continued edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Girl without The Girl[edit]

Did I miss the obvious answer: why is season 5 a season without Zooey, other than the first few episodes? I'm not even sure whether it's Zooey from the hotel window. --Traut (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As is explained in the season 5 article, Deschanel was absent for 6 episodes as she was on maternity leave. She returned in episode 10. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Day?[edit]

I got here by searching "Abigail Day". So why is it, "Abbie Day" and "Abby Day" redirects to this? I couldn't find any of those given names from the article.
Maybe closest was By emphasing how the characters got together, the show "made for hilarious setups [that occasionally led] to high-level Abbott and Costello slapstick, and I doubt they refer to that. 88.114.246.209 (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The three redirects were created just before List of New Girl characters was created. I have fixed the target so they now redirect to the entry for Abby Day. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on New Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in class[edit]

Hi there, I am going to be editing for a class and plan to make edits regarding organization, notability and overall cleaning up. I will engaging with the talk page over my edits and for the time being, working in my sandbox until they are finished. Madtownsend (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Girl&oldid=1209180310"